Engine Unfreeze

[turbof1]

Stick to answering the question that was asked.

You asked the question after making the statement.

Your statement is that engines were cheaper to produce in the halcyon days of the V10 citing Mario Illien as a source.

Now making the kind of assumptions you've made to conclude that, you'd need to forget about any of the current rules.

Like making an engine last roughly 4 GP weekends or 1600kms. Including free practice and qualifying.

How much you think it costs to build an engine like that versus one that only has to do 390kms?

Or having to add kers/hers?

Few hundred million just in that alone.

So when you compare an apple, with a pear... and ask questions...I'm gonna peel this banana and show you how silly it is to compare costings.

Again, I'm not concerned about total costs per year of engines or anything of that nature.

It's a simple question to answer, so stop trying to equivocate and answer it.

Is the cost per unit less to build 5 engines, or is it less to build 50?

The cost per unit will lower with each additional unit, UNTIL the max capacity is reached. Anything above that capacity will require more manpower, more machinery, more storage. It'll end up with raising the cost/u again. Economies of scales will only work for a set range.

GB, I get your point, but I need to correct you out of your too heavily defended argument. These aren't your ordinary ford, honda, whatever city cars coming from a horrendous long assembly line. The max capacity of these PU's will be very limited. It might infact just as well be that the average cost of producing 5 units is lower then the average cost of 50 units.

[FoxHound]

Turbo, agree with that.

Production costs as well as development costs must be factored in when speaking of per unit costs. That is basic if you want total costs, which is far more relevant to F1 than a sideshow stat on how much each unit costs.

[bhall II]

I think production costs are trivial when compared to development costs, especially when one considers that components like pistons, electrical systems, bearings, seals, pumps, lubricants, energy stores/batteries, turbos, MGU-H/K, even production tools, are supplied to the manufacturers by third parties, usually free of charge. (Well, the suppliers get the privilege of having small stickers placed on the teams' cars.)

[FoxHound]

Ben you see it as it is. Quite inescapable to be frank.

What sullies my mind here is that development costs dwarf production costs.

And an unfreeze (can we call it defrost, please?) Would escalate development costs massively.
I'm all for a defrost if it means aero and chassis "frosts" are defrosted.

Mercedes garnered an advantage, pretty hard earned with a few scalps along the way. Messrs Bigois, Brawn et al testify.

Therein lies the rub, if it is to be one and the same for all, why not encompass the same for all?

If cost is used as an excuse, it is redundant simply because of the above.

[lkm9719]

Ben you see it as it is. Quite inescapable to be frank.

What sullies my mind here is that development costs dwarf production costs.

And an unfreeze (can we call it defrost, please?) Would escalate development costs massively.
I'm all for a defrost if it means aero and chassis "frosts" are defrosted.

Mercedes garnered an advantage, pretty hard earned with a few scalps along the way. Messrs Bigois, Brawn et al testify.

Therein lies the rub, if it is to be one and the same for all, why not encompass the same for all?

If cost is used as an excuse, it is redundant simply because of the above.

i think it wouldn't increase cost as most of the engine is continuous to find more power during the season when they learn from the race by race, and F1 is about inovation and FAST, if the car slow and slower which mean lost the excitement , i hope engine rule will re-open for performance as now it is only 2 car battle............

[xpensive]

...
"A necessity to win"? Red Bull need a merc unit to win 3 times this year?

Yes, thankfully Mercedes has had the courtesy to screw up a couple of times, but lately it seems they are totally out of reach.

As for McLaren, you don't think for a second they get the same spec engines as Mercedes?

Mclaren gets the exactly same engines, but more crucially they don't get the correct information how to use them. Like when Mercedes suddenly came up with log-like exhaust manifold, which the other Merc teams didn't knew that would be introduced.

They certainly get the same ICE and ERS hardware, but what they get in terms of ERS software developments we don't know.

This is what Ron Dennis has been bitching about lately, McLaren electronics could easily upgrade this, but they are not allowed to.

Good thread this btw, for once very good moderation as well, thanks turbo.

[bhall II]

[...]

What sullies my mind here is that development costs dwarf production costs.

And an unfreeze (can we call it defrost, please?) Would escalate development costs massively.
I'm all for a defrost if it means aero and chassis "frosts" are defrosted.

[...]

I see it like this: until the day arrives when a component is homologated for an indeterminate period of time, thus removing any scope for development, R&D on that component will continue unabated; such is the competitive environment of F1, where teams will lie, cheat, steal, and even shamelessly panhandle for rule changes, if they think it will help them succeed. That ultimately means Mercedes, Ferrari, and Renault have all been developing their 2015 PUs behind the scenes since the 2014 PUs were homologated, if not sooner.

I think allowing in-season upgrades to take advantage of that ongoing work is sensible, because the production costs associated with actually implementing that work are, as we've said, trivial compared to development costs that are, and will be, incurred regardless of the update schedule.

And just from a purely philosophical standpoint, it's much more closely aligned with the historical spirit of F1 than is the status quo.

That said, I don't like the idea of a rule change this season to allow Ferrari and Renault to attempt to catch Mercedes. The advantage Mercedes won within the rules is just and belongs to them, and it would be unsporting to make any moves to break it. If anything is to be done, it should be done during the offseason. (We've seen too many in-season "clarifications" over the years anyway.)

As will happen in any homologation scenario, it's unavoidable that one team will eek out an untouchable advantage. I think its unlikely the teams didn't collectively foresee the consequences of homologation; they all probably just thought they'd be the one with the Midas touch. Either way, it was a short-sighted move, and it hurts the sport.

Generally speaking, it's understandable that some folks wish to shoot the messenger when Mattiacci and Horner speak up about the need for change. I have no doubt in my mind that each would be singing Toto's tune if their circumstances were different. But, that doesn't change the fact that their message is nonetheless sensible.

Smaller teams can't afford full seasons of hopelessly running in place, and viewers are abandoning the sport in droves, because the outcome of the Championship was decided in February. And I don't think it's unfair to say that when the sport loses fans, the ones who remain have to pick up the tab in the form of higher ticket prices, pay-to-watch broadcasts, and whatever else has to be done to bridge the gap in order to fund Ecclestone's relentless economic narcissism.

(I really hate it when I finish writing and find that I've built a wall of text. No one reads this ---, and for good reason, too!)

[xpensive]

...
Generally speaking, it's understandable that some folks wish to shoot the messenger when Mattiacci and Horner speak up about the need for change. I have no doubt in my mind that each would be singing Toto's tune if their circumstances were different. But, that doesn't change the fact that their message is nonetheless sensible.
...

Another point is that this engine freeze goes in the opposite direction of the general argument for introducing this "road relevant" engine formula, at least when MrM hatched the idea, it was about developing fuel-efficient hybrids for the benefit of road cars.

What happened was that Daimler started a 400 MEUR spending frenzy to do all at the time imaginable development at once,
while knowing very well that the opposition was to be locked up afterwards. A bold plan that worked like a charm, didn't it?

[Richard]

There seem to be a number of arguments getting jumbled up:

• Unfreezing the engine regs would allow other teams to catch up because Merc is too dominant this season. Unlike the good old days when other teams could catch up. Except Merc's win ratio this year is less than McLaren 88, Ferrari in 02 & 04. It is on par with McLaren in 84 and Williams 96.
• A spec series leads to a bunched field and open regs lead to a spread out field. The contradiction is that mid-season development would close the field so it'd be more like a spec series. Yes, in past decades open regs lead to huge diversity, however the technology (aero,PU, simulation, analysis, production turnaround, etc) is much more mature so all teams rapidly converge to the optimum performance. An unfreeze would simply lead to more rapid convergence, less divergence, more boring racing.
• Costs - An engine supplier with 4 teams, 2 drivers and 6 units per driver can produce 48 identical units per year. That is cheaper than open regs which would lead to say 12 units per driver with 96 units with subtly different specs . Yes cost per unit might go down, but total cost goes up.
• Development - You can be sure the engine manufacturers are developing like crazy and bench testing based on real data from the races. The engine freeze does not stop that, it simply avoids the cost of implementing umpteen iterations.

To be honest I'm ambivalent either way. We hear Horner complaining now, but he wasn't when his team benefited from EBD blowing that was frozen into the previous engine regs. It's swings and roundabouts, life's like hat. Live with it.

[MOWOG]

they all probably just thought they'd be the one with the Midas touch.

Yup! =D> F1 runs on ego more than it runs on gasoline.

From the teams' perspective, they all agreed to this idiotic scheme, so they should be left to simmer in their own pudding.

From the fans' point of view.......well, no one in the sport really cares about the fans' point of view, now do they? In fact, if the ptb could find a way to eliminate the need for fans, they would. We can expound all we want on this and other forums and it won't make one whit of difference. Carry on!

[djos]

@Richard

The BIG difference between the EBD and the current PU's was the lack of regulation at the time preventing others from developing and improving their EBD's. ie There was no EBD development freeze.

[Richard]

The EBD problem was that one side used cold blowing, the other used hot blowing. The engine regs prevented engine suppliers from updating their engines to switch from one to the other.

[xpensive]

...
A spec series leads to a bunched field and open regs lead to a spread out field.
...
An unfreeze would simply lead to more rapid convergence, less divergence, more boring racing.
...

So which is it?

[GitanesBlondes]

The cost per unit will lower with each additional unit, UNTIL the max capacity is reached. Anything above that capacity will require more manpower, more machinery, more storage. It'll end up with raising the cost/u again. Economies of scales will only work for a set range.

GB, I get your point, but I need to correct you out of your too heavily defended argument. These aren't your ordinary ford, honda, whatever city cars coming from a horrendous long assembly line. The max capacity of these PU's will be very limited. It might infact just as well be that the average cost of producing 5 units is lower then the average cost of 50 units.

This is where it comes to turbo, instead of trying to dictate every bit of the construction of the engines, the formula should have been set down as a 1.6L V6 single turbo unit with the ERS and a flow rate of xx, everything else is up to the manufacturers. That would have been the sensible approach if you're looking for real world relevance as design philosophies vary from manufacturer to manufacturer depending on what it is they're looking for out of the engine relative to their customer vehicles.

I know building F1 engines is never going to reach economies of scale as seen with production vehicles from Ford, Chevrolet, BMW, Volkswagen, etc., however it can still be obtained at a more reasonable level than what has been foisted upon the sport.

The engines are always going to be expensive as technology progresses, but if someone has a good idea, that can potentially circumvent a more costly approach which is where R&D cost savings is possible.

F1's gotten in the habit of trying to rule ideas as being illegal, what the hell is that?

[FoxHound]

I feel your frustration gitanes.

But ideas cost cash to implement, especially good ideas.